A blog that I post on whenever I see something that makes me want to go off on a Republican (Libertarian every once in a while) rant. I will cover stories from all over the nation and world, but I will try to cover as many stories about my home state of Michigan as I can (I'll also talk a lot about Texas, because Texas is awesome!).

Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.

Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.

Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

Should this law be approved?

YES ____

NO ____

Now, in 2008, I analyzed the whole text of the amendment, but since this is a referendum on an already-passed bill, I’m going to skip that, and go straight to my analysis. A copy of the full text can be found here.

Emergency managers are not new to the state. This is actually a bill that amends Public Act 72 of 1990.

There were two major criticisms of the original law:

Emergency financial managers were put in when it was too late.

Once they were put in, they could do too little.

So, the Legislature tried to remedy this. They added more triggers for when an emergency could be declared, and they gave the managers more powers.

Two of the powers the managers were given were especially controversial: the ability to remove elected officials from the municipality, and the ability to change or void collective bargaining agreements that the municipality had entered into.

Unions especially hated the latter provision, and they characterized it as a means of union busting. But ultimately, it was a necessary provision, because time and time again, in struggling school districts and municipalities, unions have refused to give concessions, even when keeping their current contracts means the municipality will go bankrupt (and then, ironically, they would not get paid at all). It was the stubbornness of the unions that made the provision necessary.

The second criticism was that it removed citizens democratic rights to elect their municipality leaders. Ultimately, this is not a Constitutional right guaranteed to the people of Michigan. The ability to hold municipal elections is not a Constitutional provision, and the state can take this privilege away if it so chooses.

My criticism was unlike these two and had to do with the expansion of when an “emergency” took place. It included a clause that essentially said that an emergency could be defined as when the state executive branch says it’s occurring, and I viewed this as an overstep by the executive branch (although it did have weak limited checks and balances).

So that was my reason for initially thinking I would vote, “No”. But as I thought about it more, I realized that my opposition was the minority opposition, and if it failed, it would fail because of provisions that I thought were good. And if the law failed, it probably wouldn’t be introduced again. Ultimately, there is more good in the law than bad, and I believe that the Legislature can (and should) fix the law if it passes the referendum. The problems in the law should be fixed in the Legislature, not at the ballot box, and that is why I am supporting Proposal 1.

Yesterday on Happening Now on FOX News, Virg Bernero, the Mayor of Lansing Michigan, said that auto industry workers have already sacrificed enough and it’s time for Wall Street to start making some sacrifices. Watch the video (courtesy of FOX News), and I’ll discuss it below:

Alright, honestly, the mayor went nuts in my opinion, and kinda made a fool out of himself. He said, “I was a little offended by your question, you know, have the unions given up enough, has the working man given up enough? You know, my question is, has Wall Street given up enough, for the billions that they have taken?” Um, the anchor (who’s name slips my mind at this point) never said ANYTHING about union concessions or anything related to it!

The anchor points out that that wasn’t his question (go back to the beginning and check – it was NOT his question). When asked if he thought that the UAW should have to “swallow some pay cuts,” Bernero focused solely on health benefits, again NOT answering the question that was asked!

Bernero late shows exactly what the problem with Michigan is, when he asks the question, “What are we going to produce in this country, if we allow the auto industry to go by the wayside?” For too long, Michigan has relied on the auto industry as “our industry.” The fact is that the auto industry isn’t what it used to be, and we can no longer rely on it as our only industry. And to ask what we will produce if we don’t produce automobiles, as if saying that’s all we produce, is insulting to those who work in other manufacturing fields.

The anchor also brings up the fact that UAW members don’t need health care for life! That’s one of the reasons that the Big 3 are suffering, because they’re giving health care to people who don’t work for them anymore. Bernero says that the UAW has given concessions. True, they have, but they need to give up WAY more. UAW members are WAY overpaid and get WAY too many benefits.

If UAW members would just realize that he auto industry is in trouble and can’t afford to pay them what they have been up until now, and would take some pay/benefit cuts, then the auto industry could rebound. But while the UAW shares the mentality that Bernero has, the auto industry is going to continue to suffer. I’ve said time and time again that while the auto executives share some of the blame, a lot of the blame falls on the greedy UAW for keeping the auto industry in such a choke hold.

Alright, well this morning, President Bush held a press conference where he announced his plans to give a $17.4 billion loan to GM and Chrysler. Here’s a video of that press conference (courtesy of FOX), and I have a transcript (again, courtesy of FOX) which I’ve done a “play-by-play” analysis of below:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION’S PLAN TO ASSIST THE AUTOMAKERS

Roosevelt Room

9:01 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For years, America’s automakers have faced serious challenges — burdensome costs, a shrinking share of the market, and declining profits. In recent months, the global financial crisis has made these challenges even more severe. Now some U.S. auto executives say that their companies are nearing collapse — and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the federal government.

This is a difficult situation that involves fundamental questions about the proper role of government. On the one hand, government has a responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy.

Well, personally, I think that the best way to safeguard the health and stability of our economy is to NOT give out loans to companies who were irresponsible!

Addressing the challenges in the auto industry requires us to balance these two responsibilities. If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers. Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay — and I would not favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business.

How exactly would the bankruptcy be disorderly? The whole point of bankruptcy is to keep the process orderly. And if President Bush means liquidation as in the entire company, then this press conference was just a scare tactic to get the American people behind the auto bailout. The companies wouldn’t go under.

But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed. Some argue the wisest path is to allow the auto companies to reorganize through Chapter 11 provisions of our bankruptcy laws — and provide federal loans to keep them operating while they try to restructure under the supervision of a bankruptcy court. But given the current state of the auto industry and the economy, Chapter 11 is unlikely to work for American automakers at this time.

American consumers understand why: If you hear that a car company is suddenly going into bankruptcy, you worry that parts and servicing will not be available, and you question the value of your warranty. And with consumers hesitant to buy new cars from struggling automakers, it would be more difficult for auto companies to recover.

Then by this argument, Chapter 11 would NEVER work for an auto company, because people would be hesitant to buy. And how do you remedy these fears? You emphasize the fact that 3rd party institutions offer warranties, and you don’t HAVE to go to the dealer to get your car serviced. There are lots of other shops that do just as good of a job, if not a BETTER job than the dealership.

Additionally, the financial crisis brought the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy much faster than they could have anticipated — and they have not made the legal and financial preparations necessary to carry out an orderly bankruptcy proceeding that could lead to a successful restructuring.

Um … when they were losing money years ago and asked the UAW members to take a pay cut, but the union said no, so in order to avoid a strike, the companies gave in, the companies should have known that continuing to pay wages that you can’t afford would make you go into bankruptcy eventually. Like I’ve said before, it’s the companies’ heads’ fault for not cutting wages of the workers as well as taking pay cuts themselves, and it’s the UAW members’ fault for being greedy and refusing to budge at all.

The convergence of these factors means there’s too great a risk that bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies. My economic advisors believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession. And it would leave the next President to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.

Are these the same economic advisors who encouraged the Economic Stimulus Package and the first bailout bill? Because if so, they suck, and I would have fired them a LONG time ago.

A more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy — and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability. This legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress.

If bipartisan you mean Democrats along with traitorous Republicans, then yes, I guess it was bipartisan. HOWEVER, I commend the brave and honorable REAL Republicans who stood up against this bailout, and the other bailouts. I especially commend Bob Corker (R-TN) for standing up against the UAW. Of course, Ron Paul (R-TX) must be mentioned, since he’s hugely against this as well. I commend all 28 Republicans who had the common sense to vote against this bill.

Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year.

This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I’m announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.

These loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies — which we believe they are capable of doing. Second, if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success — and gives consumers confidence that they can continue to buy American cars.

Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I’m announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall. The terms of the loans will require auto companies to demonstrate how they would become viable. They must pay back all their loans to the government, and show that their firms can earn a profit and achieve a positive net worth. This restructuring will require meaningful concessions from all involved in the auto industry — management, labor unions, creditors, bondholders, dealers, and suppliers.

Well obviously they have to pay back the loans. It’s not a loan if you keep the money!

In particular, automakers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long-term viability — including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing, persuading bondholders to convert their debt into capital the companies need to address immediate financial shortfalls, and making their compensation competitive with foreign automakers who have major operations in the United States. If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it will be required to repay its federal loans.

OK, this is where this whole thing just confuses the crap out of me. We give them the money, and they spend it. If they don’t have a plan by March 31st, they have to give all the money back. But does Bush really think that they’ll have all the money that we gave them? If they do, then it’s OBVIOUS that they don’t NEED the loan, because they still have enough money! If they can’t repay us back, how is it any different than a normal loan. How are we going to force them to pay us back? The entire PREMISE around this bailout is just idiotic!

The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake, and make hard decisions necessary to reform, These conditions send a clear message to everyone involved in the future of American automakers: The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now — or the only option will be bankruptcy.

The actions I’m announcing today represent a step that we wish were not necessary. But given the situation, it is the most effective and responsible way to address this challenge facing our nation. By giving the auto companies a chance to restructure, we will shield the American people from a harsh economic blow at a vulnerable time. And we will give American workers an opportunity to show the world once again they can meet challenges with ingenuity and determination, and bounce back from tough times, and emerge stronger than before.

Thank you.

END 9:08 A.M. EST

Well, I have now lost most all of the approval that I still had for the Bush administration.

There’s still a glimmer of hope: Once Treasury Secretary Paulson actually makes a formal request, the money will be released unless Congress rejects the request within 15 days. I can only hope that Republicans oppose it and that enough Democrats, angry at the way Bush has handled the release of money, will oppose this awful plan. Sadly, I don’t see that happening; however, I will hope and pray and continue advocating that we put a stop to all of this economic nonsense!

This bailout plan is NOT the solution. Like I said, the entire premise of it is flawed: We’ll loan you money to spend, but if you don’t have a good plan, you have to give that money back. Well, either the money is STILL in their bank accounts (meaning they didn’t NEED the money), or the money has already been SPENT (partially)!

We need some strong fiscal conservatives to show what the Republican party truly stands for. We need more people like Neil Cavuto, Bob Corker, and Ron Paul. I’m tired of the Republicans here in Michigan supporting the bailout because it will help our state. It’s selfish and wrong. I’m especially disappointed in Representative Pete Hoekstra, who has always been very outspoken about fiscal conservativism. We need people who will fight for economic justice! We need people who will fight for the American TAXPAYER!

I came across a column by economist Thomas Sowell this morning entitled “Postponing Reality,” and I’d just like to discuss part of this column with you:

We are told that the collapse of the Big Three automakers in Detroit would have repercussions across the country, causing mass layoffs among firms that supply the automobile makers with parts, and shutting down automobile dealerships from coast to coast.

You should hear the news stations here in Detroit. The news anchors night after night of covering House and Senate votes keep making comments like, “Some Senators just don’t understand how detrimental this will be to Detroit,” or “The Southern Senators don’t understand what’s happening here in Detroit” or “Talk to your friends in other states about contacting their representatives to explain how bad this would be for Michigan.” And you can substitute the word Senators with Republicans for a lot of the news anchors, since the media here in Detroit tends to lean left (as does all of Wayne County).

A renowned economist of the past, J.A. Schumpeter, used to refer to progress under capitalism as “creative destruction”– the replacement of businesses that have outlived their usefulness with businesses that carry technological and organizational creativity forward, raising standards of living in the process.

It’s survival of the fittest, economic style.

Indeed, this is very much like what happened a hundred years ago, when that new technological wonder, the automobile, wreaked havoc on all the forms of transportation built up around horses.

For thousands of years, horses had been the way to go, whether in buggies or royal coaches, whether pulling trolleys in the cities or plows on the farms. People had bet their futures on something with a track record of reliable success going back many centuries.

Were all these people to be left high and dry? What about all the other people who supplied the things used with horses– oats, saddles, horse shoes and buggies? Wouldn’t they all go falling like dominoes when horses were replaced by cars?

Unfortunately for all the good people who had in good faith gone into all the various lines of work revolving around horses, there was no compassionate government to step in with a bailout or a stimulus package.

They had to face reality, right then and right there, without even a postponement.

He actually brings up a really good point here. Industries go through cycles, and to stop these cycles with the use of government funds is only going to harm us more in the long run. Like I’ve said before, the main reason that Michiganders support this is because it helps Michigan. If the technology industry were to suffer detrimental losses, I’d be willing to bet that you couldn’t find 30% of Michiganders who would be in favor of spending billions of tax dollars on helping Silicon Valley in California.

Who would have thought that those who displaced them would find themselves in a similar situation a hundred years later?

Actually the automobile industry is not nearly in as bad a situation now as the horse-based industries were then. There is no replacement for the automobile anywhere on the horizon. Nor has the public decided to do without cars indefinitely.

While Detroit’s Big Three are laying off thousands of workers, Toyota is hiring thousands of workers right here in America, where a substantial share of all our Toyotas are manufactured.

But Toyota doesn’t have union workers. Without unions, their workers make (on average) a measly $30/hour. Wait a minute, that’s not measly. In fact, that’s more than the average GM worker ($29.78/hour). The difference comes in pensions and health care. GM has to pay out an extra $39.22/hour (that includes pensions for retirees), while Toyota has to pay out an extra $18/hour (with far less retirees). So, the average Toyota worker (assuming he worked 40 hours/week with 4 weeks of vacation), would make $57,600. That’s not that bad folks. You assume that his spouse works part time (20 hours/week at $10/hour), that’s another $9,600. That’s a yearly total of $67,200, which is DEFINITELY enough to live off of (My family of 4 lived off of about $80,000/year until my mom got a job, but she did that more out of boredom than need for more cash inflow. And we were decently well off. We aren’t rich, but we’re definitely nowhere close to going broke.), even though they may get a little less when it comes to health care.

Will this save Detroit or Michigan? No.

Detroit and Michigan have followed classic liberal policies of treating businesses as prey, rather than as assets. They have helped kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So have the unions. So have managements that have gone along to get along.

EXACTLY! I was just talking about this the other day. Every time one of the Big 3 is in financial trouble, they go to the UAW and ask them to take a pay cut. The UAW, being filled with greedy Americans says no. So instead of setting a good example and taking a 50-75% pay cut, the management simply sat there and said, “You need to take a pay cut, otherwise we may go bankrupt. The UAW continues to say, “No. And if you don’t give in, we’ll go on strike.” So, the company heads wind up giving in. If I were head of any of the Big 3 right now, I’d immediately decrease my pay to $0. Then, I’d tell the unions, “Take a pay cut, or go on strike.” If they didn’t take a pay cut, I’d let them go on strike and hire new workers. If a court ruled that I’m not allowed to hire new workers, I’d let the strike continue. Eventually, the workers will have to come back to work or the company will fail. If the company fails, it was the union’s fault for not showing up to work. But the UAW wouldn’t let the company completely fail, because then their workers would be out of a job. The corporate heads need to 1) lead by example, and 2) have some guts and stand up to the UAW.

Toyota, Honda and other foreign automakers are not heading for Detroit, even though there are lots of experienced automobile workers there. They are avoiding the rust belts and the policies that have made those places rust belts.

A bailout of Detroit’s Big Three would be only the latest in the postponements of reality. As for automobile dealers, they can probably sell Toyotas just as easily as they sold Chevvies. And Toyotas will require just as many tires per car, as well as other parts from automobile parts suppliers.

So, there you have it. This was one of the best analyses I’ve seen on the auto bailout, and I couldn’t agree more.

Who’s at fault, the UAW or the corporate heads? Both. The UAW needs to stop being greedy and be willing to take a pay cut. The leaders of the Big 3 need to lead by example and take MASSIVE pay cuts and start standing up to the unions.

Today, I saw a TV interview that has confirmed what I’ve been saying for years (see the long paragraph in the middle). The UAW has driven the auto industry down into a disastrous spiral. Watch theses videos. The first is an ad put out by the Employee Freedom Action Committee (EFAC), and the second is an interview with EFAC representative Rick Berman (done by Neil Cavuto):

Alright, so those videos discuss the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bill that would get rid of the secret ballot for unions (when workers vote to either unionize or not unionize) and would force workers to pay union dues even if they don’t want to.

There are Democrats in Congress who are supporting this, but the interesting thing is, they recently voted to keep Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in their caucus, by … you guessed it … a secret ballot.

Now, in that second video, you saw the insanely huge contract that the UAW has forced the Big 3 auto companies into. Yes, I said forced. As I’ve explained before, the UAW has bullied the Big 3 into signing those insane contracts. Because if the auto companies don’t sign, the union will go on strike, and the company will suffer and lose money. Unfortunately, the companies give in, because their executives don’t want their companies to fail. If I were the auto executives, I’d say, “Go on strike,” and when the company didn’t have enough money to stay open, I’d fire those union workers. Then see if the UAW is so stubborn. I guarantee they wouldn’t be.

There was a time and place for unions, but, for the most part, that time and place is all gone now.

Stand up AGAINST the EFCA and stand WITH the EFAC. Fight the union bosses. Fight for workers RIGHTS (the RIGHT to a secret ballot, which Americans hold so dear).

Now, I’ve never been a huge fan of Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA24), but he’s absolutely right here. If the automakers’ executives are going to fly to D.C. on a PRIVATE jet, they shouldn’t be lecturing Congress that they need more money.

Heck, I’ve been working on getting a big-name former Congressman (whose name I don’t want to give out) to come speak on my campus, and his booking agent told me, “I don’t know if Southwest Flies near you but they have great prices these days.” If a big name Congressman can fly Southwest, then Rick Wagoner (GM), Alan Mulally (Ford), and Robert Nardelli (Chrysler) can.

Until these CEOs learn to fly Southwest or Airtran or something, they don’t deserve anything close to a bailout. Additionally, the Union heads (and even workers) need to learn to take a pay cut. I’ve said before that UAW workers are so overpaid, it’s just ridiculous.

Don’t bail out the auto industry, and especially don’t do it by giving into arrogance like this.

As rumors fly that a $25 billion bailout of the auto industry may actually come to a vote in the Congress, I figured that I, a citizen of Metro Detroit and Michigan should weigh in.

First, the facts:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has called for “emergency and limited financial assistance” for General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler where legislation would be passed that would make the automakers eligible for financial support under the $700 billion bailout bill that was passed in October.

This comes after a $25-billion loan program bill specifically for automakers that was passed in September. The problem with that program was intended to loan money to the Big 3 only to help refit plants across the country in order to assist automakers in making tougher fuel economy standards. Now the automakers are saying that they need loans just to keep overall operations continuing.

Republicans in Congress are expected to push for the restrictions on the $25 billion to be dropped, before any other optionss are considered. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already started advocating for this plan; however, it is expected that Democrats will oppose dropping any of the restrictions on the $25 billion.

Now, what is my opinion?

Well, I have a lot to gain if the auto industry bounces back. I have 2,500 shares of Delphi, an auto parts supplier for General Motors. If it goes back up to $10 a share, I’ll have made a little under around $24,650 on my investment.

Plus, it’ll bring jobs back to Michigan if the automakers do bounce back. And that’ll help the economy of my state, which is in a pretty sad condition right now.

But, I still oppose the bailout.

First, I’m tired of Michiganders saying, “I support the bailout because it’ll bring jobs back to Michigan.” Well, my fellow Michiganders, when it’s YOUR tax dollars being spent outside of the state, would you support a bailout?

This attitude is the same attitude as many people have with earmarks. Ask most voters and they’ll tell you that they oppose earmarks, but then they’ll go and vote for the Representative “who brought so much money back to the district” through earmarks. Examples of this are my representative, Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI13), who brags about the earmarked money she’s brought to the Detroit area, and more famously, Representative John Murtha (D-PA12) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Second, the fact that the United Auto Worker’s Union (UAW) is backing this bailout scares me. A LARGE PORTION OF THIS PROBLEM IS THE UAW’s FAULT! The UAW bullied GM, Delphi, and Chrysler into giving workers benefits and wages that the companies couldn’t afford. How? By threatening to strike when the companies were suffering. (I don’t remember the UAW ever threatening Ford with a strike in recent years, but I could be wrong). Let me give the UAW a little lesson in business management: When your company is losing money, the LAST thing you want to do is cost your company more money by not showing up to work and going on strike. If the government is going to step in and do anything about the auto industry crisis, it should be to reduce the choke-hold that the UAW has had on auto companies. Instead of complaining about getting your benefits or wages cut, be thankful that you have JOBS. Because when you go on strike, that means products aren’t being made, which means that less products will be sold, which means that less money comes in to the company, which means that either A) you lose your job or B) you lose wages/benefits. Striking during a time of CRISIS only furthers the problem, and the fact that the UAW leadership (and at least 51% of the membership) refuses to acknowledge this (or are just too stupid to realize it), really angers me. Obviously you can’t see me right now, but I’m actually getting angry just talking about the sheer stupidity of the UAW (and a lot of unions, such as the unions that struck during Northwest Airline’s financial problems and eventual bankruptcy).

And that leads me to my next point: Bankruptcy court. We have them for a reason folks. Let the automakers use them. We shouldn’t be looking at bailouts at all until the companies file for Chapter 11 (and even after that, I will still be opposed to bailouts).

Lastly: I don’t think that the bailouts will work with the auto industry. Some have cited (as they did for the bailout bill passed in October) that the government successfully bailed out Chrysler in the 1970s by guaranteeing a $1.5 billion loan. The problem with equating the 2 situations is that in the 1970s, we weren’t establishing a pattern of bailing out company after company who came to the government looking for help. In addition, that was a bailout of one company, not the auto industry. Honestly, if one of the Big 3 fail, that will probably be enough to give the other 2 enough business to recover. It’s not ideal, or anywhere CLOSE to ideal (heck, I have friends and family members who work in all 3 companies), but it’s better than this general industry bailout plan. I think that an industry bailout will help the Big 3 for a while, but that won’t be enough for them to recover, so 1 or 2 of them may fail (I honestly think GM would be the first to go, and I don’t see Ford going under).

It’s not a good situation, but a bailout will only make it worse. Michiganders and Detroiters need to stop being selfish and start thinking about the good of the country as a whole.

Alright, after a moderately severe housing disaster last week (who knew flushing a toilet could cause so much chaos), I am back and blogging about THE RACE FOR MICHIGAN’S 9TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT! This week, I will be looking at the money (wishing that some of it were my own).

Who is giving who money?

I looked at the top 19 industry sectors (information from the U.S. Census Bureau). In 7 of the 8 sectors that the census bureau and OpenSecrets.org looked at, Knollenberg raised more money than Peters (in terms of percentage, not total. Total would be unfair to Peters because Peters has raised less than half of what Knollenberg has).

Knollenberg received contributions from the following sectors. I have highlighted the sectors that appear on the Census Bureau’s list (the Census has Real estate and Finances as separate. If they were combined, they would rank 5th, instead of 12th and 8th, respectively):

Sector

Total

Finance/Insur/RealEst

$269,200

Transportation

$238,149

Ideology/Single-Issue

$178,974

Lawyers & Lobbyists

$148,530

Misc Business

$135,050

Construction

$108,200

Other

$87,700

Health

$58,972

Energy/Nat Resource

$54,625

Defense

$33,250

Communic/Electronics

$23,550

Agribusiness

$15,500

Labor

$7,500

Now, let’s look at Peters:

Sector

Total

Labor

$132,500

Lawyers & Lobbyists

$103,921

Ideology/Single-Issue

$81,818

Other

$73,587

Finance/Insur/RealEst

$37,367

Misc Business

$35,943

Health

$15,750

Communic/Electronics

$5,300

Construction

$4,300

Agribusiness

$2,847

Transportation

$1,500

Energy/Nat Resource

$1,168

Or, let’s look at it this way, 41.99% of Knollenberg’s money has come from industries that make up a major part of the district, while only 26.76% of Peters’ money did.

So, where is Peters’ money coming from?

Well, when we look at specific industries, we see that his #1 contributing industry is lawyers/law firms. Then come leadership PACS (after retired contributors), then a whole slew of…

Unions!

Now, no offense to any union members, but unions don’t have the 9th District as their focus. Unions have gone from advocates for decent rights of workers to greedy organizations that border the category of corrupt organizations. Take the UAW for example, which is now advocating fair trade because “China sells dangerous toys.” Bull crap! The real reason that you’re advocating fair trade is because you need tariffs on imports so that companies don’t ship your jobs overseas. You want the ability to get paid $30/hour plus great benefits but still retain the right to strike anytime you want a 30 cent raise. Get a life! OK, sorry – back on track…

Peters has also received money from some of the most liberal politicians and organizations:

So, we have Peters receiving money from some of the most liberal politicians and PACs in the country – scary.

Is there any hope, Republican Ranting?

Well, there’s always hope up in Oakland County (I’ve given up on hoping for Republicans down here in Wayne County). Fortunately, Peters is being out-raised by nearly 2-1. Knollenberg has raised $1,847,146 against Peters’ $750,162. Knollenberg still has $1,336,212 on hand, while Peters has $644,931.

So, Knollenberg’s got this in the bag then?

Not quite. Although I think he’ll win, it should be noted that Peters is benefiting from ActBlue, the online Democratic fundraising site. He has 1,004 supporters and has raised $228,540. The online aspect, combined with his being on the DCCC’s RedtoBlue list, could help him where he needs it in the fundraising area.

Overall, I still think that Knollenberg is doing great and is headed for a victory, but Republicans have to step it up and make sure that they’re supporting Knollenberg, not only at the voting booth but in the check books.

The U.S. District Court for Nevada Judge, James Mahan, has rejected a lawsuit by 5 Democrats & the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) against the Nevada Democratic Party & the Democratic National Committee. The NSEA said that allowing for people within 2.5 miles of the Las Vegas Strip to vote at at-large caucuses held in casinos gave an unfair advantage to the Culinary Union, who has publicly endorsed Barack Obama. Although they have not publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, it is well known that most of the NSEA supports Clinton.

Mahan said that “the parties have the right to determine how to apportion delegates. … The Democrats can set up their own rules just as the Republicans can. It is not up to some federal judge to come along and say, I don’t like that.”

Here’s what I think … the party has the right to do this – it’s their caucus (although it does give an unfair advantage to the casino-area workers – so I DO disagree with the plan). If it was a state controlled primary, I would probably have a different opinion. On top of this, the NSEA is a bunch dishonest and lying idiots:

They have said that the party changed the rules at the last minute. This is not true. The Democratic National Committee approved the plan back in May, and the NSEA didn’t make a fuss until the Culinary Union endorsed Clinton’s opponent, Barack Obama.

They have released quotes making it sound like only casino workers can participate in the caucuses in the casinos. This is also a blatant LIE. Anybody who works within a 2.5 mile radius of the Strip can participate in the casino caucuses.

Originally, Clinton didn’t seem to take a strong side in favor of the NSEA (although I sense slightly that she wanted their lawsuit to win:

Here’s a YouTube clip of Bill Clinton not too happy about the caucuses (shouldn’t the candidate be the one more concerned here?), and it’ll explain things hopefully a little better for those of you who need more background details (it should be noted, he says the plan was proposed in March, but the DNC didn’t approve it until May – that’s why I said May up above. It should also be noted that I will defend the way that Bill Clinton addressed the reporter – the reporter kinda went after him, and in my opinion, the media needs to be put in its place more often. I’ll do a bit about outbursts against the media either tomorrow or Sunday):

I really think that the Clintons, the NSEA, and their supporters need to deal with it – and be HAPPY that this allows for more people to vote (too bad, since Clinton would be the easiest to defeat come November).

No appeal was ever filed.

Clinton has now switched to going over the head of the Culinary Union and attempting to win the support of individual voters who are members of the union, something that most likely won’t happen due to the fact that in a caucus EVERYBODY can see who you are caucusing for – and if somebody breaks from the union, well, we all remember Jimmy Hoffa.

Well, with the Michigan Legislature looking like it won’t be able to agree on a 2007/2008 budget that Governor Granholm also agrees on, Michigan may go into a partial government shutdown on Monday.

The Dems insist that we have to raise taxes, and the Reps refuse, putting the state into a stalemate.

First – taxes do NOT need to be raised for this state to have a balanced budget. We could cut funding in areas like the First Gentleman’s staffers. Dan Mulhern has three paid staffers, at least one of whom a $115,000 salary and benefits package. We’re ranked THIRD in the nation for paid staffers for gubernatorial spouses, yet we’re the state with the WORST economy.

Second – we can cut funding to schools – so that they learn to manage their money better (i.e.: DETROIT!). This last year, the greedy Detroit school district teachers went on strike because they, as always, want more and more money. This stems mainly from the problem of:

Unwilling to compromise for the better of the public
Niggardly
Ignorant
Organized Crime (Jimmy Hoffa)
No Scabs!
Sorry, we’re not coming back to work unless we have benefits up the wazoo

Hehe – mini-rant. Sorry! Anyway – I’m sure that we can afford to cut some funding to schools. Do they really need a $14 million dollar brand new building (Milan – a few years old by now)? And the Detroit schools – we gotta learn to cut costs there and just improve it. Most of the teachers I know say that the public school system wastes so much money. Moving on.If the state were to shut down, no state employees would be paid (including legislators – but I’m not sure about the Governor – I’m assuming she wouldn’t, but don’t quote me on that). Secretary of State would get shut down, as would the lottery.Wait – we’re going to shut down a source of essentially pure income – the lottery??? WHY THE HECK WOULD WE DO THIS! We gotta find a way to keep the lottery going at least.

Basically – what we need to do is find areas to cut pork barrel spending, and then cut these areas. We don’t need a tax hike – that’s just going to kill our economy more.

I’m guessing that if we do shut down, the Dems will be the first to give in when they don’t get paid – but that’s just my prediction.

EDIT: And a point that I forgot to mention earlier – and Nick’s comment jump started my memory: the Republicans have asked for a one month interim budget, and the Dems. are refusing. It’s not like the Reps. are saying “NO COMPROMISES” – they’re willing to talk for another month – they just don’t want to shut down the government.